Friday, 27 March 2015

This article was first published in ARH's journal, 'Homeopathy in Practice' in 2014

It was written by Karin Mont, Chair of ARH.

According to a recent report in the Economist (13-19 September 2014) online advertising accounts for roughly one quarter of the total global advertising business. The online purchases we make are being invisibly tracked and monitored, and the results are used to build a personal profile which covers every aspect of our lives, from where we live, to our preferred choice of bathroom tissue. Most of us are oblivious to the scale of this surveillance, but the fact is that online tracking is now commonplace and anonymity is no longer an option. We may like to think that the Internet has opened up international markets, thereby providing us with greater choice, but this comes at a price. For example, someone seeking personal accident insurance may be refused cover because invisible tracking has identified them as showing an interest in skydiving! Or someone seeking employment may be unfairly discriminated against as a result of information acquired through covertly tracking their social networking activities. We are probably realistic enough to expect advertising to be manipulative, but we may be over confident in our belief that we can make informed choices on most aspects of our life. How many of us are really aware of the influence which invisible surveillance exerts on our everyday life? We think we are in the driving seat, yet much of our perceived freedom is actually being controlled by a range of unseen, ‘external’ forces.

If we combine the surveillance gathering of the advertising industry together with that of the security forces tasked with protecting us, we can see that individual autonomy has already been compromised, and we have far less control over our lives than we realise. This may be an inevitable consequence of our increasing dependence upon sophisticated technology, and perhaps we will just have to learn to live with the results. However, surveillance is not the only tool used to manipulate and control our daily activities. Regulation, which is seen as an effective way to protect us from harm, operates in so many areas of life that we take it for granted. It is easy to forget the extent to which regulation influences everything we do.

During the build-up to the Scottish referendum, a number of ‘yes’ campaigners cited freedom as their reason for seeking independence from England. The exact nature of the freedom being sought was never properly explored, but presumably the term was being loosely used to indicate political and personal autonomy. At its most idealistic, freedom represents the fundamental right of an individual to determine the course of their life, and to think, act and speak without the imposition of external influences. However, in reality, our individual freedom will always be influenced by the environment in which we live. Laws, rules and regulations form the basis upon which our society functions, which is perfectly acceptable as long as the laws are fair, just and promote the common good. However, over the last couple of decades, we have witnessed a huge increase in the powers conferred to the regulation industry. We are told that regulation is there to offer us protection, but it frequently fails to deliver on this promise, as demonstrated by numerous high profile examples. For instance, we have witnessed the collapse of our global banking system, identified inexcusable systemic failures within our policing system, which have resulted in the exploitation of thousands of children going unreported for years, and patients dependent upon a range of NHS services have experienced consistent neglect and abuse.

These are all areas where statutory regulation has been in place for many years and where it has indisputably failed to protect the public. Regulation can also be used as a tool to promote a particular agenda, or pro- tect vested interests. The activities of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), when investigating complaints made against homeopaths and other CAM practitioners, provide a classic example of regulation being misused, in order to promote a particular agenda.

The ARH has given serious consideration to applying for accreditation of our register (AVR) via the Professional Standards Authority (PSA). Last year we attended a special PSA workshop dedicated to exploring and understanding the implications of becoming an accredited register, and we studied the PSA standards in depth. Our conclusion was that we already have quality standards in place, which we consider to be proportionate to the potential risk posed to the public when consulting with a registered homeopath. We found it difficult to identify any actual (as opposed to hypothetical) benefits which AVR might confer. We have (for example) National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy (NOSs), which describe the practice of homeopathy according to clearly defined criteria. These standards, which meet the requirements generally considered necessary to uphold the principles of best practice, have been used to inform how we regulate our profession for over ten years. We believe that quality practice results from standards which are profession specific, and which change as a profession evolves. However, standards which pertain specifically to a particular profession, such as homeopathy, fall outside of the remit of the PSA, whose only concern is to uphold generic standards which can be applied across the spectrum, to all the health professions it regulates. Normally, this single focus might not matter, but the PSA is so keen to prove its credentials as a ‘robust’ regulator, that it appears to have taken on board every spurious ‘concern’ voiced by Sense About Science (SAS), and other anti-CAM vigilantes.

The PSA has granted accreditation to 13 voluntary registers since March 2013. Each register has to satisfy the PSA Accreditation Panel that they meet the 11 core standards set by the PSA, and have processes in place to ensure that all registrants are compliant with these standards. The Panel then produces a report which considers each individual application in detail, highlighting areas where they consider improvements should be made, or specific actions taken. All the Panel reports can be viewed on the PSA website, under the heading ‘Accredited Voluntary Register Panel Decisions’.

Last year, the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) announced their intention to apply for AVR. Their application was successful, and the SoH was granted AVR in September 2014. Now they are obliged to comply with, and implement, the PSA requirements, as outlined in a 20-page report. Signing up to the establishment model of regulation comes at a price. Registered members of the SoH are not allowed to use their AVR status to promote homeopathy as a system of medicine which actually works!

I have studied the reports relating to the British Acupuncture Council (BAcC), the Complementary and Natural Health Council (CNHC) and, most recently, the SoH, and they make unsettling reading. The PSA’s sole function is to scrutinise and analyse the performance of each register, to ensure that the register can demonstrate its commitment to protecting the public from harm. In terms of ‘public protection’ the PSA’s primary objective could be regarded as misleading, because it only accredits the register, not individual practitioners. However, the AVR logo is displayed by registrants, and they have only been accredited by their register. I appreciate that this is a practical approach, but it seems to take us back to square one, where the register is self-regulating, as it was in the first place! It is perfectly reasonable to expect to receive safe and effective treatment delivered by a competent practitioner, but those standards already apply to the homeopathy profession. Regulation cannot guarantee our protection; it is impossible to regulate against human error, or to anticipate the perverted actions of those who set out to deliberately harm the sick and vulnerable, so it is difficult to see the quantifiable advantages of AVR.

When a register first applies for accreditation, the PSA circulates a ‘call for information’, asking for comments and feedback about the applicant. The PSA received 18 responses to their call for information about the SoH’s application, only two of which were positive. This means the majority of responses were probably made by SAS ‘vigilantes’, and their distorted perspective of the nature of homeopathy is reflected throughout the PSA Panel’s 20-page report.

For example, several ‘learning points’ were identified, which will be re-evaluated when the SoH’s accreditation is reviewed next September. They have been asked to provide their members with guidance about sourcing medicines from correctly authorised suppliers only. Surely the majority of practitioners are caring and responsible enough to do that anyway? Furthermore, what evidence is there to suggest that any patient has suffered harm as a result of being prescribed a homeopathic medicine from an unlicensed source? Is it actually possible to monitor and control how members access their medicines, and what happens if a member does source an unauthorised product? Other recommendations include the establishment of a risk register, to record and manage any risks associated with the practice of homeopathy, and finding ways in which to support people who want to make a complaint against a registrant, but are unable to do so in writing. Risk management and complaints procedures are explored at length in all the Panel reports I have read, and some of the recommendations made seem so disproportionate I wonder what a human rights lawyer would make of them. But there is more to cause concern.

Most alarmingly, one ‘call for information’ argued that homeopathy has no evidence base, so therefore does not constitute a health care occupation. The Panel responded to this point by noting that their role is to confirm if their accreditation standards have been met, not to determine the efficacy of a particular therapy. The PSA go on to specifically instruct the SoH to ensure that they only communicate their accredited status in relation to their voluntary register. They must not present accreditation as ‘support for the efficacy of homeopathy’. This would seem to imply that a homeopath registered with the SoH can only use the much-vaunted AVR logo if they refrain from claiming that homeopathy works, or that patients get better following homeopathic treatment! Surely, if this is the case, AVR represents a total betrayal of our profession? Are practitioners expected to deny homeopathy, simply to gain the right to use a logo?

SoH members will be expected to comply with ASA rulings on marketing and promotional materials, and the SoH will check members’ websites at random, to offer advice / support if they consider a website to be in breach of the CAP Code. It is not clear what sanctions would be taken against a member who refused to make changes to a non-compliant website. What is clear is that the SoH will not be in a position to support a member who chooses to challenge an ASA ruling. So even if a website is legal, decent, truthful and honest, and contains correct information about homeopathy, including references to quality research, if the ASA considers the CAP Code has been breached, the website must be changed or the member may face a disciplinary hearing.

The SAS vigilantes have already announced their intention to inundate the SoH with fabricated complaints and, now that they have AVR, the SoH will be obliged to investigate each complaint according to the protocols described in their AVR application. If this does happen, the SoH will have to focus time and resources on implementing a set of standards which have been heavily influenced by the personal views of the homeopathy detractors. I believe that the SoH are no longer in the driving seat, nor indeed are the PSA. The hands on the wheel have ‘SAS & Co’ written all over them, so SoH members better prepare themselves for a bumpy ride.

I would like to believe that, as homeopaths, we are the custodians of a complex, finely balanced discipline. We have a duty of care to ensure we preserve the integrity of homeopathy, complete with all its nuances, for the ongoing benefit of our patients. AVR appears to be an antithesis to this view, and the ARH will not be applying for PSA accreditation in its current form. We consider it to be more important than ever to remain independent, and continue our quest to see homeopathy recognised and valued according to its own unique merits.

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

This article first appeared in ARH's journal, Homeopathy in practice Autumn/Winter 2014

Doing harm
in homeopathy

Seven good reasons why we should not experiment on animals

by Delny Britton, RSHom

Delny Britton studied at the British
School of Homœopathy and the
Dynamis School
and has been
in practice for 11 years. She has
a particular interest in sustainable
healthcare and is
a long-standing
advocate for the
protection of the
environment and
animal welfare.
With a background
in environmental
science and journalism, Delny has
worked internationally on river
and wetland
restoration projects and written
for television and
numerous publications, including
the Times Literary
Supplement and
the Ecologist. She
has degrees in
botany, hydro-
biology and zoology, including a PhD
from Cape Town
University.

"I have written this article to bring to the attention of the homeopathic
community an ethical issue I feel strongly about; it’s one I suspect others
feel strongly about too. While the ethical dimension remains the main
driver for change I believe this is not the only reason why experimenting
on animals does homeopathy a disservice. In this article I explain why it’s
time to stop causing harm to animals in the name of homeopathy and to
concentrate instead on forms of research that are more useful in practice,
can benefit humanity and promote the therapy we know and love".

Ask most homeopaths what they
think about the use of animals in homeopathic research and they assume you mean veterinary
research, based on the care of farm
or companion animals. The idea of it involving artificially induced
conditions in frightened laboratory
animals does not naturally spring
to mind – and why would it, given
the safe, non-violent nature of
homeopathy itself? This type of research, however, has been going
on quietly in the background for
years and now appears to be on
the rise worldwide. In a long-overdue examination of an important ethical issue here are seven
good reasons why research into
homeopathy should not involve
experimentation on animals.

Reason 1: It involves suffering,
often severeAnimal experimentation within the field of homeopathy has taken
place for many decades. Today it is
going on in universities and research centres throughout Europe, in
India, South America, Australia and the Middle East (Iran, Israel),
with Brazil, India and Italy particularly well represented in English-language journals. Databases such
as HomBRex and PubMed / MED-LINE contain the details of studies
involving animals of all descriptions (such as mice, rats, toads,
eels, guinea pigs, non-human
primates) and a wide variety of
conditions, most of them acute in nature. In the majority of these
studies the ‘diseases’ and conditions of interest were artificially
induced first in the experimental
animals. Then one or two (occasionally several) remedies were
given to the animals to study their
effects on the induced condition.

The methodology used to make
healthy experimental animals ill
has been borrowed from mainstream biomedical research. So
you will read about

inflammatory states produced by injecting
animals with substances like carrageenan to promote pain and
swelling (Conforti et al, 2007);

or the use of medieval-style
restraints (Dos Santos et al, 2007)
and so on.

You will find studies of bone fractures where limbs are
broken mechanically (Alecu et al,
2010), or burns where the skin is scalded or irradiated (Alecu et
al, 2010, Bildet et al, 1990), or
infections with deadly diseases (de
Almeida et al, 2008), or poisoning
by mercury (Datta et al, 2004),
arsenic (Banerjee et al, 2008),
snake venom (D’Aprile, 2013) etc. Even the notorious writhe test,
strongly discouraged on welfare
grounds by pharmacologists (see,
for example, Gawade, 2012), has
made an appearance in homeopathic research in the study of
inflammation (Dos Santos et al,
2007). It involves injecting mice
intraperitoneally with irritant
substances like acetic acid and
counting the number of times they writhe in pain, with or without
treatment with anti-inflammatory medicines. Freund’s adjuvant – discouraged because of the
severe inflammation and tissue
necrosis it causes, often leading to self-mutilation – has also been
used (Patel et al, 2012; Sarkar et
al, 2014). All these experiments
cause harm and suffering, often
severe, and all animals with the
exception of non-human primates
are killed (‘sacrificed’) at the end
of the experiment.

In one particularly disturbing
Brazilian study 12 capuchin
monkeys were poisoned with cyclo-
phosphamide (CP), a carcinogenic
drug used to treat cancer in humans,
to see whether a patented homeopathic combination remedy called
Canova could mitigate the drug’s
devastating effects on the immune
system (Leal et al, 2012). Physical
restraint (squeeze cages) and chemical restraint (ketamine) were used
on a daily basis in order to weigh
the animals and take blood samples from their femoral veins. All
CP-treated animals became ill –
two so seriously that they had to be destroyed before the end of the
experiment. A post-mortem listed
ulcerative lesions of the gastro-
intestinal tract, herpetic lesions of
the mouth and skin, haemorrhagic
cystitis and renal damage amongst
other findings.

While welfare concerns inevitably focus on the experiment itself
we should remember that it’s not
just the invasive procedures lab
animals are subjected to that cause
distress. Experimental animals
great and small experience fear more than anything else – pain
included (Morton, 2013). Thus
heart rates, blood pressure and
stress hormones rise in response to routine laboratory procedures
such as handling and blood sampling and feeding through a tube
(Balcombe et al, 2004). Barren
living conditions can result in
boredom and depression which, in turn, lead to repetitive and uniform movements and even self-
mutilation (Wemelsfelder, 1994). In
the CP experiment the 12 monkeys
were confined in individual cages
for 50 days before the 40-day
experiment even began – a deeply
stressful experience for such highly
social animals. We know that
distressed animals generate unreliable information (Osborne, 2011)
so how can research that causes
unusual behaviour and physiology
ever be considered good science?
The short answer is, it can’t.

Reason 2: It’s unethical
It is hard to reconcile much of the
methodology mentioned above
with homeopathy, a non-violent,
safe and progressive system of medicine that evolved in response
to the harmful medical practices of
the day. But these experiments –
sometimes bafflingly referred to as
‘pre-clinical research’ – are taking
place as you read this article. They
are being approved by ethics committees, presented at conferences
and published in journals. It is
important to note at this point that
it is almost exclusively mainstream
university researchers – rather than
homeopaths – that are involved in
this work, a fact that has important consequences for the nature of the research and its relevance to the practice of homeopathy (see Reason 4).

Scientific journals have an important role to play in ensuring the research they publish gives full
consideration to animal welfare
and ethical issues, yet currently
around 45% of English-language
journals that publish animal
research have no ethical policies on
animal use, while 19% simply ask
that research is conducted according to relevant laws or institutional
guidelines (Osborne, 2011). These
can vary a lot in both the level of
detail and the standards required,
and often do not reflect best practice which now requires researchers
to question whether the work actually justifies the use of animals and
whether alternatives could be used
instead (see Reason 6). So merely
citing guidelines does little to ensure that a robust ethical review
has taken place or that alternatives
to animals have been thoroughly
investigated.
When you combine weak animal
welfare legislation with weak journal publication policies that don’t
reflect best practice in animal
research you encourage work of
dubious ethical quality, like that
involving the writhe test described
earlier, or Freund’s adjuvant, or
non-human primates. You also
encourage bad science. The findings of the CP study, for example,
are completely invalidated by a
small sample size. Twelve animals,
assigned to three treatment groups,
were used in this experiment –
effectively too small a number for
the results to have any statistical
power (particularly as two of them died). So even though the
researchers concluded that Canova
protects against DNA damage and
damage to white blood cells, these
conclusions are unsupported. An
effective ethics committee would

never give the green light to a
study involving animals that was
doomed to scientific failure, nor
one involving non-human primates
unless under very exceptional circumstances, nor one where alternative testing methods existed. And a journal editor working to a clear
and robust ethical policy on animal
research would have rejected the
work for similar reasons.
This is just one of many examples that demonstrate how weak
standards do nothing to foster
high-quality, innovative research
or encourage a shift away from
animal models towards more scientifically relevant and ethical
testing methodologies (see Reason
7). They encourage instead the
kind of projects that do not require
time-consuming enquiry and evidence gathering – work that cannot
hope to address the burning questions that need answering within
homeopathy. So more and more
work is done, much of it ‘generally
adequate’ (Bonamin & Endler,
2010) rather than outstanding in quality, and more and more
research papers follow the multitudes of other such publications
into the ever-expanding cyber-
vaults of electronic databases.Researchers often fail to meet
even basic legal or institutional
requirements on animal welfare.
We know this from numerous ex-posés of work carried out at top
UK research institutions (the
breaches of animal experiment
licences at Imperial College in
2013, for example), which gives
little confidence that the same
behaviour is not occurring in other
parts of the world and within basic
homeopathic research. One standard requirement of virtually all
welfare guidelines that is never followed by homeopathic researchers
(for fear of interfering with the
experiment) is the provision of
appropriate analgesia or sedation
to relieve pain and distress. Thus
control group rats in one of the
Freund’s adjuvant studies were left
for three weeks whilst arthritic
lesions in their feet became progressively more severe and painful.
No pain relief was given because
this would have invalidated the
experiment. Had the 12 monkeys
in the CP experiment received the
same standard treatment given to
human patients undergoing CP
therapy, their suffering would have
been alleviated somewhat by anti-
inflammatories, anti-nausea drugs
and intravenous fluid via a drip.
Instead, all that two of them
received was euthanasia.Ultimately what really brings
home the unethical nature of much
of this research are the insights that
homeopathy has given us into the
inner worlds of animals and their
spiritual dimensions. Through our
provings we have come to recog-
nise the capacity of all kinds of
species to experience joy, fear, grief,
frustration and more (read, for
example, some of the provings in
Nancy Herrick’s Animal Mind,
Human Voices). We cannot plead ignorance of this, or of the ability
of animals to suffer in much the
same way we do, and with this
knowledge comes a moral duty
to do all we can not to add to
this suffering."Humankind’s greatest goal, which
outweighs the lengthening of life
through medical advancements, is to
evolve spiritually and (that), in order
to do this, there is a need for us as
a species to learn to think of other
beings as ends, rather than means.

We do research into homeopathy
for three main reasons: to add to
the evidence base; to determine
mode of action; and to improve
clinical care for our patients.
As far as the evidence base is
concerned, sceptics say there IS no evidence for homeopathy. This
is not true of course but, while
many randomised controlled trials
(RCTs) of homeopathy have been
carried out – with 44% showing a balance of positive evidence (a comparable percentage to trials
of conventional medicine) – less
than a third actually reflect real-life
homeopathic practice, i.e. classical,
individualised homeopathy (British
Homeopathic Association, 2014).
It is hard to shoehorn a complex
and holistic therapy like homeopathy into the confines of an RCT
and doing so tends to turn trials of homeopathy into efficacy trials
of a single remedy, as in conventional, ‘one-size-fits-all’ drugs trials. But ways around such obstacles are being developed; see, for
example, the ingenious ‘cohort
multiple RCT’ (Relton et al, 2010), clearing the way for clinically relevant trials of homeopathy and,
ultimately, additional evidence for
its effectiveness.

How do basic animal studies
contribute to the homeopathic
evidence base? They can (and do)
demonstrate biological action and
they also disprove the notion that
homeopathy is merely placebo.
And there are certainly a very large
number of them. But there is only
so much that can be achieved
through basic research. Ultimately
lab animal studies represent the
weakest evidence for an intervention (Phillips et al, 2009) and no number of them outweigh the
findings of even a SINGLE well-conducted human study (Hess,
2004). So, if demonstrating the
effectiveness of homeopathy is a priority – as researchers say it is – then research efforts clearly
need to be focused on clinical trials, either human or veterinary,
rather than basic animal research.
In Brazil just 3.7% of academic
research into homeopathy between
1985 and 2006 involved clinical
studies – a staggeringly low proportion (Estrêla and Caetano,
2013). With cancer sufferers in
every town and intractable problems with chemotherapeutic drugs,
how much more useful would the
CP study have been had it involved
real-life cancer patients receiving
CP as part of their treatment –
perhaps at the hospital where one
of the researchers was based?Veterinary research directed at
improving the health of animals
has yielded positive evidence for
the effectiveness of homeopathy
and practical benefits at the same
time – without recourse to harm. A recent study of diarrhoea in
piglets carried out in the Netherlands, for example (Camerlink et
al, 2010), demonstrates the role
homeopathy can play in reducing
antibiotic use on farms, while a
British study of Cushing’s disease
in horses and dogs showed success
rates comparable to conventional
treatment but without the side-
effects, relapse rates and cost
(Elliott, 2001). Numerous small
but valuable studies like these have
been carried out over the years but
RCTs of veterinary homeopathy
remain the holy grail of evidence-
building, just 44 of them having
been published in peer-reviewed
journals by the end of 2013 (British
Homeopathic Association, 2014).

Perhaps the greatest spanner in
the works as far as gaining acceptance of homeopathy is concerned is
the fact that we don’t understand
its mode of action. People want to
know not only that homeopathy
works, but also HOW it works.
Researchers using animal models
often propose a possible mode of
action, for example that the remedies act directly on inflammatory
mediators, or on the immune system, or on certain enzyme pathways and so on. These explanations are based on a conventional
and materialistic view of the body
and in many respects they are half-right. As homeopaths, however, we
know the situation is significantly
more complex than this because
our remedies act first and foremost
at an energetic level, on the vital force itself. They affect the whole organism, touching the mind and spirit as much as they act on the body. If we want to explain the mode of action it would seem logical to study the energetic qualities of our remedies and the phenomenon of the vital force itself, not simply the physical manifestations of treatment. Homeopathy is not allopathy, it is energy medicine and it requires a completely new approach to research. To quote a wise but unknown author: ‘If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got’. Over the decades countless animals have been experimented on, yet this has brought us
no nearer to demonstrating mode
of action. It is time for something
different – to move out of the tired
rut of animal experiments, to be
innovative and creative and to
embrace new ideas emanating from other fields of science.
Translating the results of basic animal studies to real-life situations
involving sick humans is an impossible task (see Reason 7), and we
know from mainstream medicine
that it is clinical research rather
than basic research that has the
most effect on patient care (Pound
and Bracken, 2014). As a consequence none of the animal experiments referred to above are likely
to be of help to practising homeopaths. Stuart Close, professor of
homeopathic philosophy at the
New York Medical College from
1909-1913, concluded that

"... nothing of any real therapeutic
value has ever been learned by
experiment upon animals that could
not have been learned better, more
simply and more humanely by
harmless experiments upon human
beings; while the knowledge gained
in such experiments on human
beings is equally valuable for use in the treatment of sick animals.The great majority of our patients
present with chronic complaints
that develop naturally and uniquely, conditions that are influenced
by life events, environmental factors, inherited traits and so on that
all need to be considered when
prescribing. Relatively few patients
present with severe poisonings,
burns, or artificially induced
tumours and, even if they did, they would receive individualised
treatment because homeopaths,
of course, practise ‘personalised
medicine’ (see Reason 7) and prescribe on the totality of the symptoms not the condition itself.If animal experiments don’t positively influence patient care, don’t
add significantly to the evidence
base and haven’t brought us any
closer to discovering mode of
action, then who exactly does
benefit from this research and why is it still being done? To boost
publication records and academic
careers? Out of curiosity? Out of
personal bias and habit? Of all the
reasons for animal research these
are the ones least well tolerated by
society, a point explored further in
Reason 5.The process of making animals
ill and then treating them with a
single remedy appears crude and
oversimplified to the homeopath,
particularly as the focus is almost
always on the physical body and
on what happens at the organ or cellular level. (According to the Sensation method [Sankaran,
2004] this information equates to
Sankaran’s levels 1 and 2: name
and fact.) In focusing on the detail
researchers become closed to the
possibility that the piece of information they seek may not be needed to solve the clinical problem
being addressed. And they can lose the bigger picture entirely. The
role of the vital force, for example,
which ‘governs without restriction
and keeps all parts of the organism
in admirable, harmonious, vital
operation’, is rarely explored. This
is unsurprising given the mainstream view that humans and animals are simply physical beings
made of component parts rather
than energetic ones capable of
existing and experiencing them-
selves at many different levels
simultaneously (Morrish, 2007).
Yet to overlook the vital force
when studying homeopathy seems
absurd. So too does the one-
condition-one-remedy approach
and inattention to emotional state
(usually fear) unless, of course, it
forms part of the experiment. This
is not homeopathy. It is a pale and
distorted version of the therapy
that ultimately does it no favours
(see Reasons 3, 5, 6).

Reason 4: It’s not homeopathyMost basic animal research in
homeopathy is geared towards testing the efficacy of a highly diluted
medicine rather than the effectiveness of homeopathy itself. The
work is heavily influenced by an
allopathic approach to disease and
treatment and it reflects both the
conventional backgrounds of the
researchers involved and a lack of
training and experience in homeo-
pathic prescribing. The remedies
used are sometimes patented
combinations, the homeopathic
rationale for which may be unclear
(Canova, for example, contains 17 different remedies, 15 of which
are polycrests). More typically they
are single polycrests and usually relevant to the condition studied –
although this is not always the
case. One study used Chamomilla
6c to treat depression in mice
induced by housing healthy animals with dying cage mates (Pinto
et al, 2008). The researchers concluded from behavioural studies
that the remedy ‘hastened the
recovery of normal behaviour’ but,
as the results did not appear to be statistically significant, this conclusion lacks foundation. From a homeopathic perspective Chamomilla appears a strange choice for
the condition studied, but then the researchers in question may
not have seen the effects of the
remedy on a fractious two-year
old cutting teeth.

Reason 5: Public opinion
Public concern about the use of
animals in research is a powerful
agent for change. It has brought
about such things as a complete
ban on the testing of cosmetics in Europe and Norway in 2013 (swiftly followed by similar bans
in Israel, India and Sao Paulo in
Brazil) and has led to the establish-
ment of numerous centres around
the world researching alternatives
to animal testing in toxicology
and medicine.
In 2009 a wide-ranging poll was carried out by YouGov in six EU
member states (UK, France, Italy,
Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden)
before the introduction of a new
EU directive on the protection of animals in scientific research
(Directive 2010/63/EU). The results
were highly consistent across the
region and are summarised below.79% of those polled either
agreed or strongly agreed that the
new law should prohibit all experi-
ments on animals which do not
relate to serious or life-threatening
human conditions, signalling a
clear opposition to all non-essential
and curiosity-driven research.
84% of respondents either agreed
or strongly agreed that the new law
should prohibit all experiments
causing severe pain or suffering to any animal, while 80% of those
questioned agreed or strongly
agreed that all information about
animal experiments should be pub-
licly available, except confidential
information and information that
would identify researchers or
where they work.
Directive 2010/63/EU, now part
of law in all member states, broadly reflects these attitudes and desires.
Its emphasis on transparency is
expected to have a major influence
on the use of animals in scientific
research in Europe – and ultimately
in other parts of the world.
The directive requires all researchers to produce a short non-technical summary of the work
they plan to do with animals. In it they will need to state the unknowns that are being addressed,
the predicted harm that will be
done to the animals and why alternatives can’t be used. These summaries will be published on national websites that can be accessed by the public. Entering words such
as 'homeopathy’ or ‘ultra-high
dilution’ and ‘animal model’, for
example, into a database search will retrieve information on all
relevant studies in that country.

At the time of writing no basic
homeopathic research involving
animals appears to be taking place
in the UK, although British journals continue to provide a platform
for this work. In other EU coun-
tries researchers are likely to find
their work coming under close
scrutiny in the coming years, particularly by campaigning organisations. Judging by the response to
the YouGov poll it isn’t hard to
predict how the public would view
harmful experiments on animals
that involved safe medicines
already tested on humans – and
information spreads fast in the
digital age. The UK homeopathic
community, both practitioners and
patients alike, would certainly be
unhappy and want clarification on
the issue by professional registering
bodies and homeopathic pharmacies. The response from those not
sympathetic to homeopathy might
understandably be stronger ...

Reason 6: It’s quite possibly
unlawful (depending on where
you’re doing it)Directive 2010/63/EU places strong
emphasis on the 3Rs (test methods
which replace, refine and reduce
the use of laboratory animals) and
especially on replacement. The
goal of the directive is to achieve
full replacement of procedures on
live animals for scientific and edu-
cational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so.
Article 4 states that: ‘wherever
possible, a scientifically satisfactory
method or testing strategy, not
entailing the use of live animals,
shall be used instead of a procedure.’ Within homeopathy it
should be easy to comply with the
3Rs requirement and with Article 4
for the obvious reason that our
medicines have always been tested
on people, not animals.European researchers who continue to harm animals in the course
of homeopathic enquiry may find
themselves open to legal challenge by campaigning welfare organisations who will be monitoring the
new databases. These organisations
would refer to the harm / benefit
test now required by EU law and
argue that the predicted harm
would not be justified by the expected outcome (see Reason 3).
They would also argue that homeopathic medicines have been around
for a long time, a lot is already
known about them from human
studies and there is no legal requirement to test them on animals
prior to using them on humans.
They would cite the many alternatives (humans, plant bioassays, in
vitro tests) that exist, and their case
would be strong.

Outside Europe, in countries
with weaker legislation, there is
even wider scope for harm. India
is harmonising animal welfare law
with EU legislation but doubts
exist over how practical these
frameworks are and how seriously
the government takes their enforcement (Akbarsha MA and Hartung T, 2013). In Brazil law-makers
have worked hard to overhaul
1987 welfare rules governing the
use of animals in scientific research,
yet the new 2008 legislation has
numerous significant omissions, for
example it fails to refer to or place
emphasis on the 3Rs, has no severity classification system for procedures and does not even require
research to be designed with consideration for its relevance to
human and animal health, the
advancement of knowledge or the good of society (Filipecki et al,
2011). It thus falls to the National
Council for the Control of Animal
Experimentation to develop strategies to improve regulations and to positively influence both animal
welfare and the ingrained culture
of animal experimentation in the country. This could take many years.

Reason 7: It’s not necessary
Mainstream medicine has built its
foundations on animal research,
yet these are looking increasingly
shaky as scientists begin to evaluate evidence for the reliability and
success of animal models in predicting effects in humans. A recent
article in the BMJ highlighted the
fact that even the most promising
findings from animal research often
fail in human trials and are rarely
adopted into clinical practice
(Pound and Bracken, 2014). The
authors concluded that the benefits
of animal research remain un-
proven and may divert funds from
research that would be more rele-
vant to doctors and their patients.
Elsewhere an open letter from 21 scientists to Prime Minister
David Cameron stressed the dangers of relying on animal models
when testing drugs intended for
humans and emphasised the need
for greater use of human-based test
methods (Archibald et al, 2011).
Increasingly such methods are com-
ing online, ranging from sophisticated computer programmes that
can detect toxicity in minutes
rather than months of animal testing, to in vitro models that simulate whole organs and organ systems. Thus mainstream biomedical
research appears to be moving
away from animal models, albeit
slowly, driven by public opinion,
the need to reduce the incidence of
adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and
the cost and time required to bring
a new drug to market.

The great irony (that won’t be
lost on practising homeopaths) is
that two of the latest testing tech-
nologies suggest this movement is towards a rudimentary form of homeopathy. One method is
‘micro-dosing’, which involves giving human volunteers tiny doses of a potential drug at levels high
enough to allow scientists to see its effects in the body but not high
enough to cause harm. The second
is ‘personalised medicine’, in which
scientists obtain genetic and molecular information from a person in
order to predict how they will react
to a certain drug. The aim of this is to make treatment more targeted
and effective and to reduce the
number of ADRs.
ADRs of course have never been
a stumbling block for homeopathy.
The safety of our medicines has
allowed experimentation on large
numbers of consenting men and
women of all ages and ethnicities, each of whom has been able to
communicate their reactions and
experiences, whether physical,
mental or emotional. Over the
decades this non-harmful, human-based research has led to the development of a rich, multi-dimensional
and valuable homeopathic materia
medica tailor-made for ‘personalised medicine’, and to a greater
understanding of the nature of
health and disease. As Close observed almost a century ago: ‘Experiments of homoeopathy are
made by men, upon men, for men
under the natural conditions which
belong to the everyday life of all
men’ (Close, 1924). It comes as
another ironic twist then to see
homeopathic research move away
from humans as the primary research subjects and towards genetically identical laboratory animals
maintained in carefully controlled
environments.

If all animal experimentation
were to be banned tomorrow, then
research into homeopathy would
be more likely to thrive than to
suffer. The focus would shift easily
towards humans – both healthy
and sick; to sick animals, to well-trialled plant bioassays and in vitro
tests. Funding would be reassigned
and progress towards a large, high-quality evidence-base accelerated.
We could take full and confident
advantage of the safety of homeopathic medicines – downplayed by
an allopathic approach to homeopathic research – and, perhaps most importantly, research would
fully reflect the ethical principles
and innovative thinking that led to
homeopathy’s birth.

force itself. They affect the whole organism, touching the mind and spirit as much as they act on the body. If we want to explain the mode of action it would seem logical to study the energetic qualities of our remedies and the phenomenon of the vital force itself, not simply the physical manifestations of treatment. Homeopathy is not allopathy, it is energy medicine and it requires a completely new approach to research. To quote a wise but unknown author: ‘If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got’. Over the decades

Monday, 23 March 2015

This blog has been provided by Christina Villacorta, after she shared it with the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths. Many many thanks to her for allowing me to share the story, which is quite amazing.

I would like to add a little anecdote to the cataract topic, I know it is a guinea pig, nevertheless I find it interesting!Last year, I was treating Punky, my guinea pig, for some fat lumps under his belly. The only reason I did it was because they were big enough to bother him, one was close to his leg and it was very big. My daughters asked me several time to give him something but I have to say I do not feel comfortable prescribing for animals, they don't say much! Anyway, I gave him some therapeutic remedies with great success and the girls were happy and so was I. Now, soon after, my daughter held the guinea pig and she called me, very distressed, the poor thing had a white eye!!! It was quite thick and blue looking so I explained he had a cataract, he was old and it happens. Again they ask me to give something to this poor thing but I know cataracts can be tricky to treat and I have not heard of much success. I have never treated one myself but .... I had nothing to loose. So I went to old Clark prescriber and looked under cataracts:

one dose per week for 2 weeks and repeat.... Many cataracts will recede under this treatment."

Having nothing better to go for, I put a Calc-fluor 30 in his drinking bottle and forgot about it. About a week after, I was called again by my daughter who was holding the guinea pig and she was shocked, but so was I!The cataract was nearly gone, I would say 90%! I still gave him the Sulphur for a couple of weeks and the cataract never came back! This is nearly a year after.

I do not know what to think. It is one of this miracles that we see with homoeopathy and I wish it would have happened with a patient but I have never treated anyone for that. But Punky is happy and so my daughters. It was truly amazing to see what therapeutics can do even without treating the totality.

I share Christina's view. Homeopathy does sometimes work miracles. But of course it is not a miracle at all. When treatment is based on sound homeopathic principles, whether we treat humans, animals or plants, healing and cure take place. Why else are we all doing it?

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

It is interesting to note, with the Derby having just passed and Ascot about to begin, how homeopathy has been used in the treatment of injuries and the general well-being of racehorses for several decades. I

n fact the idea of using homeopathy, as a treatment for animals - termed veterinary homeopathy, dates back to the inception of homeopathy when Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, wrote and spoke of the use of homeopathy in animals other than humans.

The owners and trainers of horses have found this natural system of medicine hugely benefits the racehorse as it treats the totality of the animal, stimulating the body’s healing process whilst having no side effects or withdrawal symptoms.

It is believed that homeopathic remedies can help horses with physical, mental, and emotional

conditions and because the Horses, and their relationship with homeopathy remedies come in tiny pills or drops, they are extremely easy to administer.

There are a number of homeopathic remedies for horses but some of the most common ones available include:

Arnica helps with wound, tendon, and sprain injuries.

Aconite can help with laminitis and gastric ulcers

Arsenicum can help with colic and indigestion

Thuja helps with skin conditions such as warts, rain rot, and swelling from vaccinations

For more information on treating animals through homeopathy, please visit the Faculty of Homeopaths or the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons website.

Over a period of 30 months, 639 patients took place in a study researching whether classical homeopathy can be of benefit to cancer patients in addition to conventional medication.

There were 259 participants from the homeopathic clinics and 380 from conventional clinics.

The majority of patients indicated, over the course of the study, that their Quality of Life (QoL) had improved due to the homeopathic treatment they were given.

They, additionally, believed that their physical and mental fatigue symptoms had reduced. This suggests that classical homeopathic care could complement conventional cancer care to the benefit of patients.

The effects of homeopathy on the quality of life in cancer patients has been studied very rarely and, therefore, it would take considerably larger samples and further investigation in order to establish a definite correlation between these positive effects and homeopathic treatment.

Since homeopathy is, however, one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities for cancer patients in seven out of fourteen European countries, further research would be eminently suitable.

The unseasonably warm spring and the current inclement weather has resulted in dog walkers and ramblers being warned to be on their guard against adders after the number of attacks has increased this year.

The snake is not aggressive and usually only bites when alarmed or disturbed but there are still around 100 cases of adder bites reported in the UK each year. Their presence has been far more prolific this year, as they go out in the open to bask in the sun and subsequently come into contact with people and dogs.

About 70% of adder bites result in significant poisoning to cause damage, yet less than 20% of these cases die in the absence of treatment.

The symptoms include rapid swelling and pain at the point of entry, with gangrene and bruising around the bitten area with abnormal bleeding and collapse due to the physical shock being symptomatic.

The average death time is forty-eight hours so it is essential you immediately seek medical assistance by visiting your local hospital or vet.

Simultaneously, take Aconite and/or Rescue Remedy as soon as possible to alleviate the initial shock whilst either Vipera berus or Lachesis should help in the aftermath of an attack for the actual wound.

(The World Travellers’ Manual of Homeopathy by Dr Colin Lessell and Poisonous Snakes by Tony Phelps)

Having surgery, whether dental or otherwise, can be a stressful, painful and restless time for all those involved. Surgical treatment is often accompanied by anxiety and anticipation as well as shock and injury, which can feel as painful as the operation itself.

This list below illustrates several homeopathic remedies which can help to alleviate the discomfort experienced, whether physical or emotional.

Please ensure, however, you take the homeopathic remedies in accordance with any conventional medicine which you have been prescribed.

Arnica - this is the first choice of remedy for shock and bruising. Take Arnica 30C immediately after surgery, and then whenever you feel necessary. If you are particularly scared of the treatment, then take the remedy before the surgery as well.

Calendula - this is specific for open cuts and wounds and is used externally by applying as a cream or diluted tincture to the area around the incision. Please note, Calendula heals rapidly and can seal dirt into the wound so ensure the wound is clean before applying

Hypericum - this remedy is predominantly used if you have injuries to the nerves, when the pain shoots along the nerve tracks. Hypericum is often used instead of Arnica, or if Arnica does not work, after operations to areas such as the nose, fingers, toes, eyes, ears or gums

Phosphorous - this remedy will stop excessive bleeding after an operation, such as a tooth extraction. In addition, it can help alleviate the post-anaesthetic“spaced-out” feeling

Staphysagria - consider using this when you feel that the operation has invaded your private space, such as rough dentistry or childbirth involving an episiotomy or forceps delivery. In addition, Staphysagria is also useful when the pain or scars are slow to heal

About ARH

ARH is a leading organisation registering homeopaths in the UK.
All material in this blog is provided for your information only and should not be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action or inaction should be based solely on the contents of this information. Readers should always consult with an appropriately trained and qualified health practitioner on any matters relating to their health and wellbeing. While every care is taken in preparing this material, the publisher cannot accept any responsibility for harm or damage caused by any treatment, advice or information contained in this publication.’